incubator-imperius-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Wood <daw...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: [PleaseVote] Re: Additional function for contribution
Date Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:06:53 GMT
I agree that a post-release merge would be best, although I would 
recommend another release when we get the new code merged in.   Also, I 
will need to do some code cleanups, which may take a week or two, before 
submitting. 

David Wood 
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)




From:
Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/30/2009 04:36 PM
Subject:
[PleaseVote] Re: Additional function for contribution



If we decide to add the new code under a separate node in the tree there 
shouldn't be any issues. If we were to merge / overwrite parts of Imperius 

then I could see some additionally testing to be done.
IMHO we should go with checking this new function in a separate branch and 

then work towards merging them into 1 single entity. In the meantime we 
can freeze the existing branches
for use by Mark's team. I am not sure whether a release would be feasible 
in this time frame.

It seems to me that post merging with the new code from David would be a 
good time to propose a release. 

What do you folks think?

Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"

 
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:40 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution



It does nothing to the compatibility with CIM-SPL.  The closest thing to 
any issue raised, might be the extended comment format that we use as a 
header  before each policy.  These are standard SPL comments, but we embed 


metadata (name, type, attributes, etc) in these comments and then use this 


metadata for additional function.  Here's an example (albeit a silly one),

//// {
////    "name" : "Policy A1",
////    "type" : "AUTHORIZATION",
////    "attributes" : {
////            "class" : "network adapter",
////            "expected-result" : "false"
////    }
//// }
Import  Class java.lang.Integer:acl_integer;
Strategy Execute_All_Applicable;
Policy 
{
Condition 
{ 
    acl_integer.intValue() == 5
}
Decision 
{ 
        acl_integer.intValue()
}
}:1;


As far as when this would be added, that's up to the community. If we'd 
prefer to wait until after the release that is fine by me.  Also, although 


the code is pretty well junit tested and javadoc'd, I'm not sure we'd be 
able to commit to a Feb 6 deadline.

David Wood 
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)




From:
"Mark A. Carlson" <Mark.Carlson@Sun.COM>
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:28 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution



I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
with CIM-SPL?

Also, when are you planning to add it?

Should we do a release first, and then add this?

I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
a week from Friday?

If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.

-- mark

David Wood wrote:
> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be 
> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius. 
What 
> do people think?  If more information is needed, please let me know what 



> you'd  like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't 



> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this 
project). 
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> David Wood 
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks 
> like the policy syntax
> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>
> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their 
> experience of using Imperius
> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model 
?
>
> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
> 
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
> Ok,  I'll try sending it as a zip file... 
>
>
>
> David Wood 
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
> From: 
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
> To: 
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org 
> Date: 
> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM 
> Subject: 
> Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to 
> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality 
on 
>
> top of what is already in Imperius.  The attached is non-confidential 
and 
> describes our work... 
>
>
>
>
> David Wood 
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile) 
> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM] 
>
>
>
>
> 







Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message